So Harvard has now released the results of its sexual conduct survey and there’s only one question left to answer: How many incidents of sexual assault did not involve drinking?

In a letter to the Harvard students, faculty and alumni earlier this week, the university’s president Drew Faust explained: “Sexual assault represents a deeply troubling problem for Harvard, for colleges and universities more broadly, and for our society at large.”

The data, drawn from the survey conducted in the spring, “reinforce the alarming frequency with which our students, especially but by no means only our undergraduates, experience incidents of sexual assault.”

How frequent is it? Of the Harvard seniors who responded, “31% (or 172 women) said they had experienced some form of ‘nonconsensual sexual contact’ since college began.”

The media pounced on the story as proof of a “rape culture” at America’s colleges. But since the survey itself was written so vaguely, this finding is largely meaningless.

The questions themselves were deeply confusing. “Since you have been a student at Harvard University has a student or someone employed by or otherwise associated with Harvard…continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though you said no?” That’s a pretty wide spectrum, huh?

Need further information? There is a note that “sexual assault and sexual misconduct refer to a range of behaviors that are nonconsensual or unwanted. These behaviors could include remarks about physical appearance or persistent sexual advances.” Well that clears it up.

Harvard’s survey was conducted as part of an effort by the American Association of Universities to quantify sexual assault on campus.

Once you dig through all of the data collected here, there is no evidence that women are being stalked and violently attacked on campus.

In all, 27 universities participated and found that almost 1 in 4 students had experienced sexual violence.

Despite all of that academic firepower, it still seems that no one cared to distinguish what the heck this statistic actually means.

Turns out 23.1% reported “the incidence of sexual assault and sexual misconduct due to physical force, threats of physical force, or incapacitation,” according to the AAU report.

Let’s start with the word “incapacitation.” What does that mean? According to the report it indicates a victim is, “Unable to consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, asleep or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol.”

On campuses where students are encouraged to see every bad sexual decision as an assault, incapacitated is a way students can explain away their behavior.

And there is a lot of that going on. If you read to page 165 of the 254-page Harvard report, you’ll come across a fascinating table: “Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Involvement of Substances and Tactic.” There you’ll see that in 64% of cases involving physical force, the victim was voluntarily using alcohol.

In another 4% of cases, the victim was voluntarily using drugs.

In the cases where “incapacitation” was the “tactic,” 88% of the victims were drinking alcohol and another 4% were using drugs — again voluntarily.

Judging by these statistics, what Harvard (and presumably other universities around the country) have is not a sex problem or an assault problem or even a lack of respect for women problem. What they have is a drinking problem.

And the issue is not simply that the victims were incapacitated. It’s also that the offenders were imbibing. Indeed, the percentages are strikingly similar. In cases where the victims claimed physical force, they also reported that 69% of the offenders were drinking and 5% were using drugs.

In cases where victims reported incapacitation, 80% of the offenders were drinking and 6% were using drugs.
(There’s no explanation of how someone who is incapacitated would know whether the offenders were drinking or using drugs.)

Based on these numbers, you’d almost think that the offenders and the victims were drinking and using drugs together and then having sex.

In other words, once you dig through all of the data collected here, there is no evidence that women are being stalked and violently attacked on campus.

Unfortunately, the most useful number from this report is actually missing. When you add up all of these incidents, what percentage involve alcohol? Clearly it’s the vast majority. But that does not make it in to the letter from President Faust.

Instead, there are urgent requests “for community conversation, engagement, and action.” The need for re-education about sexual relations will never be adequately fulfilled.

Its trendiness never seems to subside. And the demands from the federal government for more policing in this regard seem only to increase.

But drinking? Who wants to talk about that? What are we? A bunch of prudes telling kids that alcohol is dangerous in large quantities? That college is not some kind of free-for-all in which everyone can become “incapacitated” without consequence? That students need to learn self control? Fat chance.

Dallas, TX, September 30, 2015 (Newswire) - Universal Media Group (UMG) is proud to announce the representation of Ahmed Mohamed, the fourteen-year-old boy who was arrested in Irving for bringing a homemade alarm clock to school to show and impress his teachers. As former Dallas ISD trustee Ron Price states, "It is time that we all become one."

The family has retained the legal counsel of Thomas Bowers and Reggie London to handle their upcoming suit. All calls or media requests should be directed to UMG so that the family can focus on their lives.

UMG will receive emails and phone calls on behalf of both the Mohamed family and the attorneys. All requests will be addressed in the order in which they are received and a response will follow within 48 hours.

UMG is a full service advertising agency and public relations firm that services clients worldwide.

Please contact UMG for interviews by calling 214.347.7803 or by email at Patricia@umgad.com or Diane@umgad.com.

[War crime victim] “Chris Sanna, second from right, poses for a family photo with his mother and brothers at a Cardinals game on Friday, Sept. 25, 2015. He was shot during a robbery after leaving the game. Family photo.”

War crime victim Chris Sanna in uniform 20 years ago, possibly with his mother

War crime victim Chris Sanna in the hospital, presumably with his mother

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

“Fly Me to the Moon” was a schmalzfest of a record that sounded like it was by Gordon Jenkins, but was actually composed by Bart Howard. It was the kind of kitsch—think “Unforgettable”—that paid the rent for Nat Cole, who had a big hit with it.

About ten years later, in what was the single greatest arrangement I’ve ever heard, a brilliant young black musician and chart-writer named Quincy Jones put the song through a magical, musical metamorphosis.

If Jones had devoted himself to music, he might have ended up the greatest arranger of them all. Alas, he was more interested in becoming a billionaire.

Fly Me to the Moon
By Bart Howard

Fly me to the moon,
Let me play among the stars,
Let me see what spring is like,
On Jupiter and Mars,
In other words, hold my hand,
In other words, baby, kiss me.

Fill my heart with song,
And let me sing for ever more,
You are all I long for,
All I worship and adore,
In other words, please be true,
In other words, I love you.

[Bridge]

Fill my heart with song,
Let me sing for ever more,
You are all I long for,
All I worship and adore,
In other words, please be true,
In other words…
In other words,
I … love … you.

The owner of a burgled new Chicago store “says he is circulating the surveillance video in hopes of catching the thief and is offering a $500 reward leading to an arrest and conviction.” That’s a little difficult, if the media censor the video.

The blurred-out frame from the video was posted as a twit by Chicago News Now, which linked to the CBS Chicago story below. However, if you hit the link, you’ll see that CBS Chicago has completely removed the video, and disabled comments.

My conclusion: The folks at CBS Chicago are aiding and abetting the burglar.

(CBS)— Surveillance video shows a man breaking into a shop in the Wicker Park neighborhood early Tuesday neighborhood.

It happened at the 312UAV speciality store at Paulina and Milwaukee. The owner says four items were taken with an estimated value of $2,000.

The store sells quadcopters, parts and accessories and the owner says he just opened the Wicker Park store last month. He says he is circulating the surveillance video in hopes of catching the thief and is offering a $500 reward leading to an arrest and conviction.

Got Himself Arrested on Sundry Other Charges Before Cops Concluded He was the Shooter

“Chris Sanna, second from right, poses for a family photo with his mother and brothers at a Cardinals game on Friday, Sept. 25, 2015. He was shot during a robbery after leaving the game. Family photo.”

Chris Sanna in uniform 20 years ago, possibly with his mother

Chris Sanna in the hospital, presumably with his mother

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has published the vic’s name and photo, but has refused to publish the suspect’s name, mug shots, or the surveillance images of him using the vic’s stolen credit cards. As Chicago Tribune reader scrappy koala would say: Don’t bother telling us, because we already know!

I've said it before and I'll say it again that you are right. Race doesn not matter and you dont need to tell us what race it is because we already know. Especially when you dont tell us. If this was White on Black crime there is no doubts on anyones mind that all of a sudden race would matter and you would report it but if its black criminals you wont say race which actually tells us the race. When ever a news site wont say the race I instantly know which race. This works pretty much 100% of the time without fail.

ST. LOUIS •A suspect in the shooting of a Cardinals fan downtown last weekend is in custody, authorities say.

Police Chief Sam Dotson tweeted Tuesday that "a person of interest has been identified" in the shooting of Christopher S. Sanna, 43, of House Springs. Dotson said the person was in custody in St. Louis County on unrelated charges.

The suspect is a man in his 30s, according to police sources. He was arrested over the weekend in north St. Louis County on unrelated domestic assault, weapons and drug charges.

He was identified as a suspect in the shooting of Sanna after detectives saw surveillance images of a man using Sanna's credit card after the robbery, according to the sources.

Sanna remained hospitalized Tuesday. Doctors told his family last weekend that his spinal cord cannot be surgically repaired because of the damage from a bullet. They hold on to hope that his spine may recover to some degree on its own, though doctors say he will likely never walk again.

Sanna was shot about 10:30 p.m. Friday at Walnut Street and Memorial Drive. He and his siblings had been at the Cardinals game to celebrate his mother’s 60th birthday. Sanna and his girlfriend left the game at the start of the ninth inning Friday because he had to work Saturday morning. The rest of the family stayed for the game and to watch the postgame fireworks.

Sanna had parked at the Old Cathedral parking lot and was walking to his car. According to police, two men in a dark-colored sedan drove up to Sanna and his girlfriend. The driver got out with a gun and demanded their belongings. The woman gave the gunman her purse, and the couple turned to run away. That’s when the gunman fired several shots in their direction, hitting Sanna in the back.

“They turned to run away, but they didn’t make it very far,” his mother, Candis Sanna, told the Post-Dispatch Monday. “As soon as they gave them the stuff, they were going to try to run away, but he shot them. They were within arm’s reach.”

After Christopher Sanna’s girlfriend called 911, he lay on the pavement and called his mother’s cellphone from the scene. It was so noisy from the fireworks that his mother didn’t pick up. “Mom, I’ve been shot,” he said on his mother’s voicemail.

Sanna has been on pain medication at the hospital but has been awake and able to share some of the details of what happened to him.

Christopher Sanna is a manager at an automotive store in south St. Louis County. He has an adult daughter. He served six years in the Army, stationed in Germany.

His relatives set up a fundraising site for help with his medical bills. By early Monday, they had raised about $5,000, a number that jumped into the tens of thousands by late Tuesday as media reports of the shooting drew attention to the site.

Candis Sanna, who works near Union Station, said she’s aware of crime problems in the city. But she said she expects to be safe when coming and going from a baseball game.

The shooting has sparked discussion of safety downtown and after Cardinals games.

Police officers usually can be seen in the immediate vicinity of the stadium before and after games as they direct pedestrian and motor traffic. Beyond three or so blocks, a police presence is not as visible.

The Cardinals hire off-duty St. Louis and St. Louis County police officers to work part time at the stadium during games. As many as 25 officers are working inside the stadium during games, and more are expected for the postseason.

Dotson said the department plans to beef up its presence downtown going into the playoffs.

Mayor Francis Slay said Monday he would give Dotson “unlimited overtime” to put more police on the streets. Slay reiterated his goal to hire more police officers, but he warned it might not be enough to combat what he called “a higher level of boldness” by criminals who are carrying more and higher-caliber weapons and who have little regard for consequences.

“We cannot have a cop on every corner at all times all over the city of St. Louis,” Slay said Monday.

I just got this in the mail. The journal The Social Contract is the best kept secret on the Web.

This coming Saturday, Oct. 3, is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the infamous 1965 Immigration Act. The Fall TSC has a number of articles discussing this. You might care to bring some of them to the attention of your readers.

I'm Rudy Andre a retired NYC Detective. I was assigned to the 28th Precinct in Harlem.

I would like to thank your president Milt Williams for the opportunity to address you this evening. Your former president Eddie Woods invited me to join this 10-13 club during the 911 memorial service last September, which was held at the Flagler Beach Pier. I am now a current member of this 10-13 chapter. I 'm going to speak to you tonight about the murder of Police Officer Phil Cardillo as seen through my eyes on that fateful day April 14, 1972.

The 28th Precinct along with the 25th and the 32nd precinct all shared the same radio frequency in the 6th division. I started the 8 to 4 tour with my partner Frankie Crowe. We were assigned to pick up a repaired RMP in lower Manhattan. While in route back to the 2-8 a signal 10-13 was transmitted over the radio. I proceeded with lights and siren to 102 West 116 Street. I was familiar with the address having walked a foot post on 116 Street. I sometimes stood in front of those two large metal doors with the occupants needing to walk around me to gain entrance. Who knew of the dangers that lie just a few feet away? I continued to the 10-13 traveling north bound on Madison Ave. when just a few blocks from entering the 2-8 precinct the 10-13 was called off. Even though the call for help had been terminated I made it a habit of responding at a slower rate of speed, just in case the !$%* hit the fan again.

I pulled up and double parked across from 102 West 116 St. I ran across the street and witnessed PO Vito Navarra being assisted by another Police Officer. Vito was badly beaten and bleeding. I ascertained from Vito that other Police Officers were still in the building.

Hearing this I tried to open the doors that stood in front of me. Failing to open I looked into the one square foot one way glass window. To my astonishment I witnessed other officers trapped inside that were being beaten by about 15 to 20 men.

I called in a 10-13 forthwith at 102 W 116 St. Still unable to enter I made the decision to pull my gun out and smash the tiny window. I then fired three shots over the heads of the felons in an effort to get them to withdraw. To my satisfaction they fled to the rear of the premises. Unfortunately two of my brother officers lay unconscious on the ground.

A third Officer Ivan Negron of the 25th precinct who was badly beaten managed to stand to his feet and fired his weapon at the fleeing mob.

Still unable to gain access through the dead bolted doors I screamed through the window I had just broken. I kept calling out to Negron to come open the F N door. I repeated this call several times before Officer Negron understood we were sill locked out. Finally after what seemed like forever he staggered to the front doors and unbolted them.

I lead the charge into the building first stopping where our officers lie unconscious. I recognized Police Officer Phil Cardillo he was bleeding from his nose and mouth. I said, "Oh God please take care of him". Two other officers followed me in and began removing Phil to a waiting Police car. I kept up my pursuit of the fleeing mob. They ran down the hallway which had three ways for them to escape. The first was a stairway on the right which led up to the second floor. This was the same stairs that our brothers were beaten down from just moments earlier. The second escape route was on the left of the hallway leading into the Salaam # 7 Mosque restaurant. The third route which they decided to run to was the stairway down into the basement.

I gave chase and entered the stairway where I was confronted by a Nation of Islam Soldier who thought he would try to push me up. I was having none of this and struck him in the head with my revolver sending him bleeding and unconscious on the stairway. I was still in pursuit mode when I hit the bottom of the stairway. At the bottom I was confronted by another Nation of Islam Soldier. He towered over me and failed to comply with my lawful order to put his hands up and face the wall. He advanced towards me leaving little choice but to knock him unconscious with my gun butt. He went down with a thundering thud. He was later identified as Louis Dupree 17X the dean of boys and the killer of Police Officer Phil Cardillo. Two down and 14 others to go.

I now had the attention of the remaining Nation of Islam Soldiers. They started to comply with my orders to put their hands on the wall. Back up men began arriving in the basement as I started searching the suspects from left to right.

While I was searching the 4th man I noticed that his clothes were disheveled and he was missing his right shoe. I rear cuffed him and dragged him upstairs. I noticed this mans other shoe next to where Officer Phil Cardillo and Police Officer Victor Padilla of the 25th precinct lie bleeding just minutes earlier. I then continued out the two front doors and placed the subject in a radio car. He was to be removed to the 2-4 station house by another unit that responded to the 10-13.

I turned around and as I was walking back into the Mosque I heard shots fired. They rang out on 116 St. just west of Lenox Ave. Hearing these shots I ran up 116th St. to render assistance. It was Police Officer Louis D'Alessio firing shots trying to protect Randy Jurgensen who was struck in the head and fell unconscious in the arms of our Precinct Commander Inspector Haugh.

The crowd on the street was ugly, they were looking for blood. Luckily a City bus was trying to make its way down 116th St. It was readily commandeered and used for their rescue.

In the book Murder at the Harlem Mosque as written by a friend and fellow Detective Sonny Grosso there's a photo of myself with my gun out next to the bus protecting the occupants inside. When the bus was safely underway I made my way back through the crowds to the basement of the Mosque. I rejoined the other members of the force who had finished searching the Nation of Islam Soldier's and secured the basement. Regular cops doing what cops do. We had the basement secure and 14 men detained. It should have been an easy thing to at least identify and ascertain names of these defendants. They were the son of bitches that had assaulted our brother officers. The only people identified that day were the two men I knocked out in the basement. One was the Murderer Louis Dupree 17X, as he had to be taken to Harlem Hospital. The other was the shoeless Bobby Hopes 9X. With nothing left for me to accomplish I was ordered by Chief of Detectives Seedman to tend to my wound at St Luke's Hospital. I had cut myself when I broke the front door glass and needed stitches to help stop the flow of blood.

The crowd on the street was overturning cars and rioting. The powers that be Benjamin Ward and Charles Rangel made a decision at the bequest of Mayor Lindsay to let the Black Muslim leader of the Mosque #7 Louis Farrakhan take the detainees to the 24th precinct later in the day.

That time never arrived.

If not for the extraordinary efforts of Detective Randy Jurgensen the murderer of our Brother Officer Phil Cardillo would never have been arrested. Randy is one of the most dedicated men I've had the pleasure of knowing and working with. His book Circle of Six is a true representation of Phil's murder and the disgraceful behavior of Mayor Lindsay and Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy. What a shameful display of cowardice. Then for them not to attend the funeral of a Police Officer killed in the line of duty is outrageous.

After my injury had healed I returned back to active duty. I remained in the 2-8 often working the sector where the Mosque was located. Being a good cop I would pay particular attention to the cars parked at the parking meters at the side entrance to the Mosque. So good in fact that Louis Farrakhan made arrangements with the city to have the meters removed.

Too bad, I would have been happier being removed to a country club precinct elsewhere. I stayed on the dangerous streets of Harlem for several more years.

That was a time before bullet proof vests and automatic weapons were available for patrol officers. Somehow the felons always had easy access to weapons.

I commuted from Long Island with three other officers who were also shot, but luckily they survived their injuries. I faced down armed men on numerous occasions and had to shoot three men during three different armed robbery attempts.

Almost 20 years after the death of Police Officer Phil Cardillo I had a chance meeting with a young man working in A&L deli in Palm Coast. He recognized my miniature Detective badge and inquired if it was a NYC badge. We went back and forth about my working in Harlem. Todd then explained that his father had worked in Harlem and in fact he said his dad had worked in the 2-8 precinct.

Todd then explained that his father was Police Officer Cardillo. I then explained my involvement the day of his Fathers murder and conveyed the above story to him. From that point Todd and I have become good friends. We have similar interest in cars in fact he painted one of my muscle cars. I was proud to be present at his wedding to Deanna. It's amazing how fast Todd's children Tiffani and TJ have grown.

May God bless Todd and his family and let us always Remember Phillip W. Cardillo a true patriot and hero.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Most people today hear “New York, New York,” and think of a crappy song that John Kander and Fred Ebb wrote for Liza Minelli in the terrible, eponymous Martin Scorcese movie, which co-starred Robert de Niro, in a typical Scorsese role as a low-life trombonist.

In 1978, Frank Sinatra began covering that song on his tour, and did what only the greatest singers can do—transcend his material. Today, most people don’t even know that Sinatra was covering a song written for Minelli. They figure the song has been written for ‘Ol Blue Eyes.

When I was a kid, everyone knew this song, which was the signature tune for the city. The musical On the Town opened on Broadway on December 28, 1944, and ran for 13 months, which in those days counted as a big hit. As the song tells us, the show is about three sailors whose ship docks in New York harbor, and who get a 24-hour pass, and who resolve to cram a world of living into that single day:

Gotta pick up a date,
Maybe seven or eight,
On my way,
In just one day.

In the stage show, the three sailors were played by Cris Alexander, John Battles, and Adolph Green. In the 1949 movie, they were played by Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, and—drumrollbecauseit’stheanswertoatriviaquestion… Jules Munshin.

When I came to New York City 30 years ago, after five years in West German exile, and well-to-do white transplants told TV news reporters they “love the energy” of the city, they were speaking in pc euphemisms. “Energy” meant the black and Hispanic thugs and psychopaths who ruled the streets of a city with an IQ of about 96. However, way back when, New York was a city that had a collective IQ of around 102, immeasurable talent, and was the cultural and artistic capital of the world. It was a place of seemingly limitless possibility.

The Jewish-dominated City College of New York was producing future Nobel Laureates, real ones, and the Jewish-dominated legitimate stage was busting out with brilliance.

The show in question was composed and choreographed by a couple of 26-year-old Jewish youngsters, Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990) and Jerome Robbins (1918-1998), respectively. In 1957, when they collaborated on West Side Story, it seemed like the sky was the limit. Alas, Bernstein gave in to a life of sexual debauchery and political adventurism, and lived off his “residuals.” I’ll say this for him, though: He was the most gracious luminary I ever met, at least until I crossed paths with the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter, over 30 years later.

The Legendary Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly and Jules Munshin perform New York, New York from the 1944 musical and the 1949 MGM musical film On the Town. The music was written by Leonard Bernstein and the lyrics by Betty Comden and Adolph Green. The best known line of this song is, "New York, New York, a helluva town. The Bronx is up but the Battery's down." For the film version, the word "helluva" was changed to "wonderful" to appease the Production Code offices.

A general reportedly told a stunned audience of military officials back in January that “a woman will graduate Ranger School,” before the school even convened, meaning that Army leadership were [sic] dead set on moving at least one female through the course.

“At least one will get through,” the general added at a meeting of subordinates preparing for the start of Ranger School, which began on April 20.

That preordained mandate apparently had a ripple effect throughout Fort Benning, Susan Katz Keating at PEOPLE reports.

“Even though this was supposed to be just an assessment, everyone knew. The results were planned in advance,” sources told PEOPLE.

This is precisely what Rep. Steve Russell, himself a Ranger graduate, suspected. Earlier this month, Russell sent in a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh, asking the service head to pass along documents of female performance at Ranger School. Russell wants test scores, evaluations and injury records. (RELATED: Congressman: Did Women Get Special Treatment at Ranger School?)

Sources listed a variety of exceptions women received, despite men still being held to the rigorous standards outlined in the Standing Operating Procedures handbook for Ranger School.

First, female candidates received two weeks training from the National Guard’s Ranger Training and Assessment Course (RTAC) in January in preparation for the course, which started April 20. Males weren’t allowed to repeat RTAC, but women were — again and again.

Following the pre-training, females were assigned to a platoon at Fort Benning for months to receive full-time training with a Ranger, Sergeant First Class Robert Hoffnagle. They were even taken out to the field regularly to see the land navigation course. This is a difficult segment which is timed. When male candidates in Ranger School came across the land navigation segment, it was the first time they had ever seen it.

“He taught [them] everything, including how to do patrols,” a source told PEOPLE. While the Army denied that women were even part of the special platoon, a woman who belonged to the platoon confirmed with PEOPLE that “Hoffnagle got us ready for Ranger School.”

And finally, a two-star general showed up to cheer the women on throughout the most difficult parts of the course.

Even Capt. Kristen Griest, one of the two females who graduated the course, was surprised she made it through successfully.

The remaining women were called in May 7 to see a general. At that point, an Army source told Keating, no women were left in the course. The general “told them they could not quit – too much time and money had been devoted to bringing them here.” The day after, May 8, eight women were permitted to restart the first phase. These women failed the first phase again and were given an offer to begin the entire course from the start.

Miller, the general who met with the women and oversees Ranger School, arrived on the scene. Once he arrived, the women passed the first phase.

“No matter what the general intended to convey, the instructors had no choice but to take this to mean, ‘Play along,'” a source told PEOPLE.

The women stumbled and struggled repeatedly. Miller returned to the course, and two women ended up graduating.

Recycling has been another complaint by observers carefully watching the moves of Army officials. Officials have admitted that the number of recycles afforded to women is rare, but not unprecedented. Throughout the entire process, Army leadership has strenuously denied that any standards were modified, or that there was any pressure to do so.

Ranger instructors, however, tell a different story.

“We were under huge pressure to comply,” one Ranger instructor told PEOPLE. “It was very much politicized.”

As a result of the one-time gender-integrated assessment, the Army opened up Ranger School to women on Sept. 2. (RELATED: Ranger School Is Opening Its Doors To All Female Soldiers)

I hope Annie’s right about this. As brilliant as she is, she’s a lousy political handicapper!

Ann Coulter.

- It's illegal immigration - that's the number one issue.

- Trump's candidacy is really exposing - like I never thought could get exposed - is how every other one of these Republicans can not take the pro-American position because their donors don't want it. That's it. They are completely beholden to elites who do not care about America.

"'People at the school thought it might be a bomb, perhaps because it looks exactly like a (expletive) bomb,' Maher said. Panelist Jorge Ramos disputed Maher's opinions, but other panelists, including Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Republican presidential candidate George Pataki, agreed with the host."

Federal authorities have obtained indictments that allege two groups of inmates used cell phones inside state prisons to run a drug ring across the metro area and perpetrate fraud schemes against individuals outside the prison walls.

Of the 12 people indicted, two are former Department of Corrections employees, four are current inmates and three are inmates who were granted parole in 2014. The alleged crime rings were run out of Phillips State Prison in Gwinnett County and Valdosta State Prison.

In the case involving Valdosta State Prison, one inmate, Donald Howard Hinley, ordered a hit against an inmate he believed was cooperating with authorities, said the indictment, which was unsealed Thursday.

“Hinley ordered his associate to ‘shoot every one’ of the witness’ family members and said, ’ … pop them all off, kids, grandmamas, daddies, I don’t give a (expletive), right?” the indictment said.

But immediately after law enforcement learned of Hinley’s plan, the cooperating inmate was placed in protective custody, the indictment said.

Contraband cell phones smuggled into the state prison system are a menace, corrections officials have said. They are used to coordinate attacks inside prison and allowing inmates to continue their criminal activity outside of prison.

Inmates regularly buy and sell the phones, many of which are the latest models equipped with touch screens and Internet access. In these two cases, federal authorities say, they were used to traffic drugs, commit fraud schemes against unsuspecting victims and plan a violent assault against an inmates who was cooperating with law enforcement.

Hinley was charged along with Ruben “Flaco” Ruiz, William A. “Two Young” Matthews and Kansas “Guido” Bertollini, all of whom were recently paroled from state custody. With their assistance, Hinley routined brokered significant illegal drug deals in the Atlanta area and in other areas of Georgia, the indictment said.
Also charged was Anekra Artina Williams, a former guard who allegedly smuggled contraband into Valdosta State Prison in exchange for bribe payments.
On one occasion, she smuggled methamphetamine and prescription pain medicine into prison for Hinley in exchange for $500, the indictment said.

The second indictment accuses three current inmates, Mims Morris, Johnathan “Turtle” Silvers and Adam “Scrap” Smith in a prison smuggling and fraud scheme.

They were allegedly assisted by another defendant, Charonda Edwards, who worked in the kitchen at Phillips State Prison and smuggled in phones, drugs and tobacco for inmates.

An awful lot of interesting, weird things seem to be happening at gas stations these days. It seems like all an enterprising (and fearless) freelancer has to do is camp out at a gas station in an interesting, vibrant, diverse area, with a mobile devise, and start reporting online about what he sees. Of course, he’d better be strapped, or he’ll find himself liberated from his device, and maybe his life, in a hurry.

[Several versions of the original video are shmushed together here. If you want to see the most full-length version available, you have to play it until 1:11, to see the same guy who started the fire recover his wits, and heroically put it out.]

The Muslim American boy championed by President Barack Obama is using his new worldwide fame to accuse Texans of racism and anti-Muslim discrimination.

“My dream is to raise consciousness against racism and discrimination,” he said at a New York press event with Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, according to an article in the Turkish newspaper, HurriyetDailyNews.com.

“Davutoğlu, who is New York for the 70th United Nations General Assembly, has met with 14-year-old student Ahmed Mohamed, who was detained at school by the police in Texas when a teacher thought a clock he had made was a bomb,” the newsite said.

“Speaking to reporters ahead of the meeting with Davutoğlu, Mohamed said he was excited to meet the Turkish prime minister [and] said he wanted to raise awareness against racism and discrimination,” said TodaysZaman, a Turkish newspaper that support’s Turkey’s Islamist governent.

The boy tweeted out a picture of his meeting with the prime minister, and his observant Muslim wife, Sare Davutoğlu, who was wearing an Islamic hood.

On Sept. 14, teachers and police in Irving, Texas, detained and questioned Mohamed about a box and wiring he brought into his High School.

The boy’s device was a commercial 120-volt alarm clock, first dismantled and then placed in a case where the screen could not be seen by any users. The boy also left the clock’s innards exposed, so when the power-cord was plugged in, the clock could electrocute anyone who reached inside the case to turn the alarm on or off. The device’s intended purpose was so obscure, in fact, that puzzled police and teachers thought it was a hoax-bomb.

The police skepticism likely was raised because of the recent attempt by two men — both observant Muslims — to machine-gun a large group of attendees at an art exhibition in nearby Garland, Texas. The men were successfully killed by a policeman who was standing guard in the correct expectation of an attack by Muslim men.

Two days after the police briefly detained the boy, and amid a social-media hurricane of progressive claims that Irving’s police were motivated by racism and dislike of Islam, Obama publicly congratulated Mohamed via a Sept. 16 tweet. “Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great,” Obama tweeted.

Davutoğlu is the Islamist prime minister of Turkey, who is working with President Recep Erdoğan to roll back the secular reforms imposed by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s and 1930s. For example, his new government rules require students to study the Koran in school.

He is also trying to reassemble Turkey’s Ottoman Empire, which was destroyed by World War One. “We will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power,” he said in 2013.

In March, Davutoğlu insisted that the recent criminal murder of three “young Muslims” in North Carolina was caused by “Islamophobia,” which is a term used to suggest that dislike of Islam’s ideas is evidence of insanity. He used the claim to back his argument that Turks in America and Turkish-Americans “defend shared humanitarian values shoulder to shoulder, together with other Muslim Americans and those who are against racism.”

“This undated photo provided by the FBI shows Jose Banks, one of two inmates who escaped from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in downtown Chicago Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012, by repelling [sic] down a rope fashioned from bed sheets. Banks says the government was negligent in enabling the breakout, so he sued for $10 million in damages. The 7th U.S. Court of Appeals said in an [sic] ruling Friday, Sept. 25, 2015, that Jose Banks ‘gets credit for chutzpah.’ But it tossed his 2014 lawsuit.” [Jose Banks is not to be confused with Joseph A. Bank.]

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I thank the old friend who sent me this story, which I predict is going to become immortal through re-telling, and that at some point, some people are going to believe that it's apocryphal, because "no one could be that dumb."

CHICAGO — An inmate who escaped from a high-rise federal jail in Chicago has an unusual theory on who's to blame: He says the government was negligent in enabling the breakout, so he sued for $10 million for damages.

The 7th U.S. Court of Appeals said in a Friday ruling that Jose Banks "gets credit for chutzpah." But a three-judge panel at the Chicago-based court tossed his 2014 lawsuit.

"No one has a personal right to be better guarded or more securely restrained, so as to be unable to commit a crime," the ruling said.

In a 2012 jailbreak, Banks and a cellmate rappelled 17 stories down on a rope fashioned from bed sheets and dental floss, then hailed a cab. Banks, now 40, was caught within days and his cellmate within weeks.

Banks' suit says the damages he suffered from the escape included the trauma of dangling on the makeshift rope in fear of his life.

Authorities dropped the escape charges against him because he was going to prison for decades anyway on a bank robbery conviction.

But Banks, who represented himself in the civil case, alleged his cellmate forced him to participate in the escape, which took months to plan and execute. His suit says guards should have noticed the two were chiseling an escape hole in their cell and should have stopped them long before they fled.

Banks says he has had to endure tighter restrictions than fellow inmates at his current prison because of the escape from the Metropolitan Correctional Center three years ago.

The suit also claims Banks has suffered "damage to his reputation," as well as "humiliation and embarrassment," and what Banks calls "injury" to his "spiritual constitution."

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: The Communist Manifesto

Author: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Release Date: January 25, 2005 [EBook #61]

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ***

Transcribed by Allen Lutins with assistance from Jim Tarzia.

MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

[From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels]

A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism.

All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact.

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a Power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history
of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices,
serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the
background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world
after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on
the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the modern working class—the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed—a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.

Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty,
the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants—all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours' bill in England was carried.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own instruments of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The "dangerous class," the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie,
replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

II. PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. (2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class-character.

Let us now take wage-labour.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we
want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property—historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production—this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.

Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which
cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

III. SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE

1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM

A. Feudal Socialism

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political contest was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose Feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half
lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart's core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of
modern history.

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the
proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

One section of the French Legitimists and "Young England"
exhibited this spectacle.

In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different, and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.

For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed, which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.

What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it
creates a proletariat, as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.

In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.

As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord,
so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy, water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The mediaeval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.

In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced, in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.

This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchal relations in agriculture.

Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.

C. German, or "True," Socialism

The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expression of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.

German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits, eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance, and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of "Practical Reason" in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will as it was
bound to be, of true human Will generally.

The world of the German literate consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.

This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literate reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote "Alienation of Humanity," and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois State they wrote "dethronement of the Category of the General," and so forth.

The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms they dubbed "Philosophy of Action," "True Socialism," "German Science of Socialism," "Philosophical Foundation of Socialism," and so on.

The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having
overcome "French one-sidedness" and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

This German Socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.

The fight of the German, and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the
liberal movement, became more earnest.

By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and bullets with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.

While this "True" Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of the German Philistines. In Germany the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction; on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry "eternal truths," all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on its part, German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany
belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

2. CONSERVATIVE, OR BOURGEOIS, SOCIALISM

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misere as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.

3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf and others.

The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, these attempts necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form.

The Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).

The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements, in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.

Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create
these conditions.

Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organisation of the proletariat to the organisation of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.

In the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at
large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them—such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production, all these proposals, point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest, indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely Utopian character.

The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres," of establishing "Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria"—duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem—and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.

The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Reformistes.

IV. POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES

Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats, against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.

In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.

In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightaway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in
Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois Revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Communist Manifesto
by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ***

***** This file should be named 61.txt or 61.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.net/6/61/

Transcribed by Allen Lutins with assistance from Jim Tarzia.

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.

*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at http://gutenberg.net/license).

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at http://pglaf.org

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

http://www.gutenberg.net

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

About Me

I am a dissident journalist, whose work has been published in dozens of daily newspapers, magazines, and journals in English, German, and Swedish, under my own name and many pseudonyms. While living in internal exile in New York, where I am whitelisted, I maintain NSU/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau and some eight other blogs (some are distinctive but occasional venues, while others are mirrors), and also write for stout-hearted men such as Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. Please hit the “Donate” button on your way out. Thanks, in advance.
Follow my tweets at @NicholasStix.

$ $ $

The response so far to WEJB/NSU’s ongoing fundraiser has been very heartening, but we need tens of thousands of dollars more, in order to tide us over for 2012! If you have given, I thank you. If not, please consider making a donation.